Parinibbāna is a parāmaṭṭhadhammā.
Therefore, Parinibbāna is not pure non-existence.
In reality, Parinibbāna is the ultimate state of existence, vacant of Cittā, Cetasikā, Rūpa, or the Five Aggregates.
However, I could be mistaken; so, please correct me if I am misrepresenting the most sacred view of Orthodox Buddhism.
Anguttara Nikâya (II, 37)
“Sir, will you be a god, a deva?”
“No, brahmin.”
“Sir, will you be a heavenly angel, a gandhabba?”
“No, brahmin.”
“Sir, will you be a demon, a yakkha?”
“No, brahmin.”
“Sir, will you be a human being, a manussa?”
“No, brahmin.”
“Then, sir, what indeed will you be?”
"Brahmin, whatever defilements (âsavas) there be owing to the presence of which a person may be identified as a god or a heavenly angel or a demon or a human being, all these defilements in me are abandoned, cut off at the root, made like a palm-tree stump, done away with, and are no more subject to future arising.
“Just as, brahmin, a blue or red or white lotus born in water, grows in water and stands up above the water untouched by it, so too I, who was born in the world and grew up in the world, have transcended the world, and I live untouched by the world. Remember me as one who is enlightened (Buddhoti mam dhârehi brâhmana).”
Thank you very much. Now I understand better!
He does now. Basically he disagree that nibbāna is what the atheist notion of death. Taking into account the difference on our position with atheists on rebirth needs effort to be overcomed.
He thinks that there’s eternal experience of nibbāna instead of all experiences end at parinibbāna.
Basically I find him contradicting this: Does The Buddha live in Nibbana | American Monk: Life with Buddha, Dhamma and Saṅgha
I take the Nibbāna exist means it’s possible to attain to Nibbāna, not that nibbāna is a something which is always here, before enlightenment and after parinibbāna, never changing, all blissful. (Mahayana may call it Dhammakāya or buddha nature, B. Thanissaro calles it consciousness without surface, unestablished consciousness etc) Or else one can just cling to Nibbāna as a self because it is a something, permanent and blissful.
Ok, interesting. But from what you said ( I still havent listened to the podcast) it sounds like he is distinguishing the annilhilationist position from the Theravada? I really doubt he thinks there is some existence after the final parinibbana of the arahat. He understands Dhamma too well for that.
Dhammakaya and Thanissaro have an eternalistic position at odds with Theravada (I think you are saying that?).
there is a thread on that here:
Yes.
I am pretty confident that I have the same view as classical Theravada from the post I created some time ago. And from listening to B. Bodhi, he totally is trying to find something after parinibbāna. He knows it cannot be 5 aggregates or 6 sense bases, but still trying to find something which is not totally no experience like what he thinks the atheist version of eternal death is. He said, if parinibbāna is really like the atheist conception of death, then the Christian wins.
So he used Nibbāna element itself as the name for that something which is after parinibbāna. Somehow consciousness transforms into this to give eternal experience of nibbāna or something like that.
Yes.
If what ven. Bodhi is trying to do is differentiate from the annilhilationists then that is an important distinction though.
I must get time to listen.
“Bhikkhus, there are some ascetics and brahmins who proclaim supreme purification. Of those who proclaim supreme purification, this is the foremost, namely, by completely surmounting the base of nothingness, one enters and dwells in the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. They teach their Dhamma for the direct knowledge and realization of this. There are beings who assert thus. But even for those who assert thus, there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with it; being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate toward the foremost, not to speak of what is inferior.
“Bhikkhus, there are some ascetics and brahmins who proclaim supreme nibbāna in this very life. Of those who proclaim supreme nibbāna in this very life, this is the foremost, namely, emancipation through non-clinging after one has seen as they really are the origin and passing away, the gratification, danger, and escape in regard to the six bases for contact.
“Bhikkhus, though I assert and declare my teaching in such a way, some ascetics and brahmins untruthfully, baselessly, falsely, and wrongly misrepresent me, by saying: ‘The ascetic Gotama does not proclaim the full understanding of sensual pleasures, the full understanding of forms, or the full understanding of feelings.’ But, bhikkhus, I do proclaim the full understanding of sensual pleasures, the full understanding of forms, and the full understanding of feelings. In this very life, hungerless, quenched, and cooled, I proclaim final nibbāna through non-clinging.”
AN 10.29
“Master Gotama is an annihilationist.”
“There is, brahmin, a way in which one could rightly say of me: ‘The ascetic Gotama is an annihilationist.’ For I assert the annihilation of lust, hatred, and delusion; I assert the annihilation of the numerous kinds of bad unwholesome qualities. It is in this way that one could rightly say of me: 'The ascetic Gotama is an annihilationist.”AN 8.11
Translation by Nyanaponika
Itivuttaka 44
Nibbānadhātusutta
This was said by the Blessed One, spoken by the Holy One, and thus I have heard:
There are, O monks, two aspects of Nibbána: the Nibbána- element with the groups of existence still remaining (sa- upádisesa-nibbánadhátu), and the Nibbána-element with no groups remaining (anupádisesa-nibbánadhátu).
What now is the Nibbána-element with the groups of
existence still remaining? In that case, O monks, a monk is an Arahat: he is taint-free, has fulfilled the holy life, accomplished his task, thrown off the burden, attained his goal, cast off the fetters of existence and is liberated through right wisdom. But there still remain with him (until his death) the five sense- organs that have not yet disappeared and through which he still experiences what is pleasant and unpleasant, as well as bodily ease and pain. The extinction of greed, hatred and delusion in him, this is called the Nibbána-element with the groups of existence still remaining.
And what is the Nibbána-element with no groups of existence remaining? In that case, O monks, a monk is an Arahat … liberated through right wisdom. In him, all those feelings, no longer relished, will even here (at his death) come to extinction. This is called the Nibbána-element with no groups of existence remaining
I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Sariputta was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels’ Feeding Sanctuary. There he said to the monks, “This Unbinding is pleasant, friends. This Unbinding is pleasant.”
When this was said, Ven. Udayin said to Ven. Sariputta, “But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is no feeling?”
“Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is no feeling.”
AN 9.34
"‘Right view, right view,’ it is said, Lord. In what way, Lord, is there right view?’
"The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two views, to existence or to non-existence. But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is, ‘non-existence of the world’ does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, ‘existence of the world’ does not apply.
[…]
“‘Everything exists,’ this is one extreme; ‘nothing exists,’ this is the other extreme. Avoiding both extremes the Tathaagata teaches a doctrine of the middle: Conditioned by ignorance are the formations… … So there comes about the arising of this entire mass of suffering. But from the complete fading away and cessation of ignorance there comes the cessation of the formations, from the cessation of the formations comes the cessation of consciousness… So there comes about the complete cessation of this entire mass of suffering.”SN 12.15
"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, great king, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘The Tathagata exists after death’ doesn’t apply. 'The Tathagata doesn’t exist after death doesn’t apply. ‘The Tathagata both exists and doesn’t exist after death’ doesn’t apply. ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death’ doesn’t apply."
SN 44.1
the sources by themselves are more useful than any other explanation. 
Because we will arrive to the middle way taught by the Buddha.
I believe the issue on an eternalism in the Bhikkhu Bodhi stuff seems to be dragged to this board from a discussion in SuttaCentral, according the link posted by the OP.
I don’t have any intention to open any polemics. I joined that thread (user Puerh) because B.Bodhi rarely falls in wrong views in their works. His public opinions can be polemics but his works shows quite contemption, an intention to become enough orthodox.
And then, into that thread I have found in these critics some peculiar views around the Buddha teaching which I thought were able to explain their critiques of some eternalism. At least in my view it has been an interesting discussion. Some users defended a novel view on nibbana and the Buddha teaching which are (at least in my understanding) characterized by these trends:
they don’t accept the Buddha complete eradication of dukkha, despite the words spoken by the same Buddha. It seems in that EBT Buddhism there is no recognition of the difference between body pain and dukkha by means the no-clinging of Buddha and Arhants. They name explicitly “suffering” to the body pain arising in the Buddha and Arhants.
no acceptance of the possibility of a true complete nibbana in life, only after death. Logically it means a denying of the transcendent character of the Buddha teaching.
no explanation or understanding between the five-clinging aggregates and the five aggregates. They understand the cease of clinging to the aggregates is not possible until the physical death, after leaving the residue. They believe that while there is sense activity caused by the aggregates, the nibbana is not complete and the liberation is only partial and temporary. They understand that the cease of clinging to the five clinging-aggregates is not the same thing than some cease of the clinging to the aggregates in themselves(?). Maybe the bypassing of this difference is intentional or maybe not. I suspect that no; this is just a lack of understanding of the relation.
in a general way, they understand the word “Cease” inside the Suttas like the end of existence of whatever related thing. The product of an annihilation because the atta decay or a kamma course, instead being the result of the end of clinging and becoming.
they make a novel and interesting D.O. interpretation: they explain the dependent origination only referred to the course of one life: the D.O. only will be finally accomplished after the physical death.
there is also an unavoidable kidnapping of the nothingness ambit to supplant nibbana. And this is logical in order to fulfill an annihilationist view of the existence like the complete liberation: death is the true liberation for nibbana because death is very real. This decay of an atta delusion of mind-body is “so real” that surpass the Buddha teaching on anatta, and therefore the true nibbana only can be possible after death.
I believe this is an objective summary of their views and beliefs appearing inside that thread
Some of my answers now appears deleted, despite being centered only in the arguments. Anyway, the discussion has been productive at least to me. Useful to understand better the basics of that new EBT Buddhism.
Need to say, despite the interchange in that thread, I don’t have any special rejection to whatever view around the Buddha teaching. Because in our times whatever belief connected with the Buddha teaching can seem like a blessing, despite the bizarre it can sounds for oneself. Just I think the clarification is always needed to know what we are talking about. And later each person can agree or not according understanding.
If there is interest in these views, the thread is the previously quoted. Also I have added in that board an interesting book explaining the historical and cultural roots in the West for that interpretation of nibbana in annhilationist terms:
“The Cult of Nothingness: the Philosophers and the Buddha”. Roger-Pol Droit, 2003.
it is interesting because maybe that annhilationist interpretation of nibbana can be strange in the rest of the Buddhist World. Although in the West this is something persistent and not new. And there are added causes to be known.
Into that book there is an historical summary from the times of the first receivers of Buddhism in the West. Important names who modelated the nibbana meaning according their own ideas and wishes for their troubled Societies. Their works were very influential in the further Western translators and scholars until our days.
Dear Zerotime
unfortunately I haven’t had time to listen to the podcast by ven. Bodhi, and I doubt I will have time to work though the mass of ideas in that thead on suttacentral… I think ven @Paññādhammika has been explaining quite well, maybe he will add something.
Anyway we can simplify this deep topic a little:
Visuddhimagga
XIX19
“There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result. Phenomena alone flow on, no other view than this right.
XVIII24
“This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no personXVIII.31
this mentalitymateriality is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands
merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had
> curiosity and interestedness. This is how it should be regarded. Hence the
Ancients said:The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.
Thus upon attaining Khandha parinibbana the long, long process of arising and ceasing is finally ended.
Bodhi note to the Yamaka sutta:
151 His position is not quite the same as that of the common annihilationist,
since he does not hold that all beings are annihilated at death. He seems to hold
an eternalist view in regard to unenlightened beings (since they have a lasting
self which transmigrates) and annihilationism in regard to the arahant (since he
utterly perishes at death).
Spk: If he had thought, “Formations arise and cease; a simple process of
formations reaches nonoccurrence, this would not be a view (diṭṭhigata) but
> knowledge in accordance with the Teaching.But since he thought, A being is
annihilated and destroyed,” this becomes a view.
Why is this important to get right now even though we may be very far from arahatship?
Because it is closely related to views of self and to the concomitant views of annihilationism or eternalism.
The eternalist thinks nibbana is where some undefined existence can continue.
The annihilationist thinks that a self is extinguished upon attaining nibbana.
Each view can range from very subtle to very gross.
Yamaka had a subtle annilhilationist view - because he still had an idea of self. An extreme case would be that upon death the good, the bad and everyone is equally extinguished.
A subtle eternalist view might be that there is some undefined profound existence for the arahat after death, an extreme case would be that arahats after death live in some blissful nibbanic world and can still communicate somehow.
Well the CT view is that these relate to the Self. Ven. Bodhi’s argument, as far as I understand it, isn’t that there is a Self in final nibbāna but that nibbāna itself is truly existent. In this regard he isn’t saying anything different from the Visuddhimagga. That said he does diverge from Ven. Dhammapāla’s commentary when he argues that nibbāna is a “sphere” or “dimension” since in that particular commentary āyatana is read in terms of nibbāna being a cause of the removal of defilements, rather than being a sphere of experience.
I have transcribed some of ven Bodhi’s talk, starting from around 20 minutes: Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi: Noble Truths, Noble Path (#179) - The Wisdom Experience
Yeah. You know, I was really wanting to sort of start with the end, which is a little bit unconventional. But, you know, partly we want to know where we’re going.
Interviewer: Yeah. Right. Where’s the Buddha telling us we might be able to go? And what is the highest goal for abodes? And we hear about nibbana nibbana.
Well, I wanted to start there. What is this? What is nibbana.? And is that even a good question? Like, is nibbana a theme? The way I see it, the Buddha has different ways of approaching the question, what is nibbana? So I would maybe divide his way of characterizing the nature of nibbana., maybe put it into three categories, three classes. One would be, I use the word metaphysically or ontologically explicit statements about nibbana…
I know ontology and metaphysics. We think the Buddha avoided metaphysics, avoided ontology. I don’t think that’s the case.
In order to talk about anything, you really need an underlying metaphysics. Okay, so ontological or metaphysical statements about nibbana and statements extolling nibbana as a desirable state, suttas or statements that are intended to inspire in people the wish, desire to attain nibbana… And then the third category would be suttas which describe nibbana or even define nibbana in terms of the task that has to be performed in order to attain nibbana.
Should I elaborate on each of these? Yeah. In my opinion, I’m giving a lecture on nibbana…
Interviewer: This is great.
If that’s what this is, perfect.Okay, so what I call the ontological and metaphysical perspective. So there are certain words, and I put special emphasis on this because there’s a view within certain circles in the Theravada tradition, particularly emanating maybe from a geographical region where Daniel comes from, where you come from, that nibbana is really just non-existence.
And so the aim of the Buddha’s teaching is to reach that state of non-existence. I have to say with that, I always think in that case the Christian missionaries win. Because they’re saying that this teaching has a very beautiful ethics, but it aims at complete annihilation.
Interviewer: So you think that’s wrong?
Yeah, so I say that there are these terms with an ontological significance that the Buddha uses. Some of the words are dhatu, which we often translate as element, ayatana, base, pada, or state, and even the word dhamma, which has a very broad meaning. And so there are suttas which speak about nibbana as a dhatu.
In fact, in the suttas we have, let’s see if I can get it, amata dhatu, that is the one that is the deathless element. So let us see. Majjhima Nikaya Sutta number 64.
The Buddha says that one contemplates the five aggregates as impermanent, dukkha, non-self, and then he uses a few other descriptive terms. And then one turns one’s mind away from those things and focuses on the amatadhatus. And then with the mind focused on the deathless element, then one attains either the complete destruction of the defilements, or if there’s still some clinging left, the state of non-returning.
We pause here for a sec. So the Buddha is actually saying in this statement something very familiar, that Buddhist practice is often contemplating the five aggregates and understanding their three marks, right? And selflessness being, and permanence being one of them, the suffering …, right? But in this one, the Buddha is saying at a certain point, you turn away from that, and focus of what is, I’m interested in the verb, you turn towards the deathless element. What does that actually mean? What does it mean? Yeah, I don’t think it’s in that book, because it’s in the Majjhima Nikaya.
Let me see if I can find it. So we’re actually turning away from this contemplation on the five aggregates, having these three marks, and we’re focusing, I’m interested in the verb, focusing on a deathless element. So why are we turning away from this? Yeah, I think this is not something that just happens sort of willfully, that you’re contemplating the five aggregates, and then you think, okay, enough of that, I’m going to turn to the deathless element.
But I think this is what sort of naturally happens when insight into the nature of the five aggregates has reached its pinnacle. Then what happens, this is the way that commentarial tradition will explain it, that what arises is the world transcending path, the Lokuttara Magga arises, and that drops the conditioned phenomena as this object, and it focuses on, it actually experiences, sees, and realizes the unconditioned element. And that unconditioned state, that is the deathless element.
Otherwise known as Nibbāna. That is Nibbāna. So it seems like, it’s not just like turning away, it seems like as you get to a certain level of realization on the nature of beings, you automatically enter into this deathless element, otherwise known as Nibbāna.
Interviewer: What we’re trying to discover tonight is what is that being, right? So this Nibbāna comes out of this insight into the nature of beings.
Yeah, yeah. In fact, those three characteristics, you know, the three main characteristics of conditioned phenomena are sometimes said to be called doors to emancipation, vimokamukha, doors to emancipation.
And each one sort of leads the mind to focus upon Nibbāna in a different way, as determined by the opposition between that characteristic and the nature of Nibbāna. So it’s said when you focus on condition phenomena as impermanent, then when you reach that peak, that becomes the door to the perception, the realization of Nibbāna as the signless element, because it’s devoid of the sign or features of conditioned phenomena, of impermanence. If you make the main focus of your contemplation the unsatisfactory or suffering nature of conditioned phenomena, that leads to the realization of Nibbāna as the desireless or wishless element, because Nibbāna is sort of the antidote to craving or desire.
And then if one focuses, if one’s insight emphasizes the non-self nature of conditioned phenomena, then when you reach the world-transcending plane, then you experience or realize Nibbāna as the sunyata, that’s the door of sunyata, of the empty nature, Nibbāna as emptiness. So contemplating these three natures of beings, and the five aggregates, they’re like doorways to Nibbāna. Exactly.
And it seems like depending on which doorway you take, Nibbāna is described differently. Yeah. Always in the negatively, it seems.
So the wishless, desireless. That’s interesting. Yeah.
But we’re going to say that it’s not just a state of nothingness. Yeah, yeah. I’m going through sort of the different ontological terms.
So we started off with the dot, with the element. And the word element, it always signifies something that positively exists, that definitely exists. For example, the familiar scheme is 18 elements.
Those would be the six sense faculties, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, their corresponding objects, and then six corresponding types of consciousness. So those are 18 elements. Then we have, well, there are other schemes of elements.
Oh, yeah. Of course, the four elements, the four material elements, earth, water, fire, air, and then sometimes space element is added, and consciousness element. So those are things that actually exist that have a nature of their own.
And so nibbana as a dhatu, the nibbanadhatu, or asankhata dhatu, the unconditioned element, is something that exists that has a nature of its own. Okay. Then another term that’s used is ayatana.
And so we have a sutta, I included it in this book, actually. So in this book, chapter six, it’s all on nibbana… And there’s two short suttas here.
I don’t think ayatana occurs here, but in this book. So once we go on this exploration of nibbana., I think we’re going to try. Yeah, there is actually 365.
*Okay. So here the Buddha says there is that base.
So this is ayatana, where there is neither earth nor water, fire nor air. Then he mentions the different planes of existence. And there is neither this world nor another world, neither sun nor moon.
Here I say there is no coming, no going, no standing still, no passing away, and no being reborn. It is not established, not moving without support. This is the end of dukkha, the end of suffering.
And these are your arguments for nibbana being something, not just nothingness, but being something more than that ontologically. Yeah, exactly. And so we’ve talked about two things.
So you’ve talked about this idea of, you know, element, dhatu, or ayatana is face. And so these are two things. And so now I’m sort of wanting to switch gears a little bit, but we can keep going if you want.
Interviewer:And I want to bring in the idea of consciousness. If this is to be experienced, if this is to be perceived, this being nibbana., this thing that exists ontologically more than nothingness or blankness, what’s its relationship to consciousness? And the way I wanted to enter into this conversation is to start with your name, Bhikkhu Bodhi. So this word, Bodhi, could you tell me a little bit about what this word means? What is Bodhi? And when the Buddha was awakening, what’s Bodhi mean, actually? So Bodhi means enlightenment, the enlightenment of the Buddha.
>
So it wasn’t given to me because I’ve reached enlightenment. But I don’t know why teacher just gave it to me. I don’t know.I wanted a longer name, but he gave me the name Bodhi. I said, how about Bodhinyana? Bodhi is good enough. How about Bodhisattva, Lion of Enlightenment? Bodhi is good enough.
So you were like bargaining with your name, right? His name was Ananda Maitreya. So how about Bodhi Maitreya, Maitreya Bodhi? No, Bodhi is good enough. And so it means enlightenment.
But what does, I guess, what’s the relationship between nibbana.? This deathless state and this moment that the Buddha had, we call awakening or bodhi.
Interviewer: Yeah, okay. So bodhi and nibbana are not the same in early Buddhism.
Bodhi is the experience, the opening of the knowledge, not conceptual knowledge, the experiential knowledge by which one experiences nibbana… And through that experience of nibbana., it eradicates, destroys certain of the bonds or fetters or defilements that keep one in bondage to the cycle of birth and death. If I remember the commentaries, actually they give several explanations of the word bodhi.
So they say bodhi could be the knowledge of the four paths. So the four paths are like the four stages of enlightenment in early Buddhism. The path of stream entry, once returning, not returning, arhatship.
But then they also say that bodhi is the knowledge of the fourth path, only the highest path. And then bodhi is the knowledge of a supreme Buddha. And then they say bodhi is, sometimes they equate bodhi, if I remember, even with the…
that quote is really proper, because at least in my understanding, it is because a denial of the transcendental character of the Buddha teaching what cause all these wrong views and bizarre ideas around the Buddha teaching.
I think these descriptions of nibbana like “all-round, luminous” arises in a context of restriction of the senses in a contemplation of consciousness as consciousness (ie: seated meditation).
Inside the Suttas, the Buddha defined Consciousnes like cognitions.
"And why do you call it ‘consciousness’? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. "
SN 22.79
From a Sutta context, the Consciousness are the movements of knowledge under -self delusion because clinging. When we read “Cease of consciousness” this is referred to the cease of all that activity. And then, what remains is stillness instead annihilation. Before the cognition in itself, the nature of knowledge is to enlight the object of clinging. And when these movements of grasping conditioned by the -self delusion ceases, what remains is just the enlightening aspect, “light, all around”. Of course this is not a physical light despite it accomplishes a similar function for the seeing.
However, in a context without restrictions of the senses (ie: walking or whatever) the arising of nibbana while contemplating dhammas will manifest the anatta nature of dhammas. The Cease of Consciousness is the same and also the stillness, happiness and freedom. It is the same nibbana nature.
Btw: What is really “light”? that’s another complicated issue and Science don’t have a remote idea. I mean that maybe we are forced to do a fundamental distinction because our ignorance. If I’m not wrong, the Abhidhamma makes a distinction between outside and inner light according the origin, although I’m not sure if there an explanation of a fundamental distinction between both.
I don’t see any problem with what Bodhi is saying. If one thinks there is a self then nibbana must be seen as annihilation . But there is no self.
I thought this is where he differs from Classical Theravada? Reifying Parinibbāna as something as opposed to nothing.
Directly contradicting this: Help for responding to people who say: Buddha never said there's nothing after parinibbana
From Abhidhamma: SuttaCentral
Definition of Pain
Herein, what is ‘pain?’
That which is bodily pain, bodily disagreeableness, pain arising from contact with the body, disagreeable feeling, pain and painful feeling that is born in the body.
This is said to be ‘pain’.
Pain is the translation for dukkha here. The word dukkha has many meanings from all suffering including mental and physical suffering to just only physical suffering. Mental suffering ends at attainment of arahanthood while alive.
There’s 2 kinds of nibbāna, with remainder and without remainder.
Your claim for this means arahants has no more mind consciousness is untenable. The Abhidhamma analysis specifically has the just functional citta for arahants. If arahants do not have mind consciousness, there would be no need for abhidhamma to assign this functional thing to arahants. The other 3 possibilities for consciousness are: wholesome, unwholesome and resultant.
Five aggregates which is clung to is 5 clinging aggregates. When clinging ceases, gone, no more, eradicated, destroyed by the arahant, their 5 aggregate are still there, functional for them, but unclung to. The rest of your unquoted paragraph here is a gross misunderstanding which I have no idea how you can even get to.
No. Dependent origination is many lives. That’s why after ignorance ends for the arahants, their consciousness until feelings are still there. The final cessation of consciousness is only at death, parinibbāna of an arahant. If it’s one life model, then it makes more sense to say from cessation of ignorance, consciousness ceases as well in this life. But consciousness for many life model refers to rebirth relinking consciousness. That’s why only future rebirth relinking consciousness is totally ceased while arahant is still alive and not all consciousness.
If you still think in terms of self, you woulf naturally think of cessation of 5 aggregates, 6 sense bases with nothing leftover as annihilation, but when there’s no self, there’s only suffering which arises and ceases, nothing worth clung onto. Annihilation doesn’t apply to cessation. Although to an atheist it looks like the same thing.
It looks to me like he is being careful with words.
Remember the Udana -
There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated
I don’t see him suggesting the arahat exists after death?
,